Friction-maxxing is the practice of intentionally choosing less convenient options in daily life to build tolerance for discomfort, resist technology-driven ease, and preserve what proponents describe as meaningful human experiences. [1] The term was coined by columnist Kathryn Jezer-Morton in a January 2026 essay for The Cut . [2]
Jezer-Morton introduced the term in a piece titled "In 2026, We Are Friction-Maxxing," arguing that technology companies have conditioned people to treat ordinary experiences like boredom, social awkwardness, and effortful thinking as problems to be eliminated. [2] She defined friction-maxxing not as simply reducing screen time but as "building up tolerance for 'inconvenience' (which is usually not inconvenience at all but just the vagaries of being a person living with other people in spaces that are impossible to completely control)." [2] She has said the concept of "friction" stayed with her after a 2025 conversation with journalist Karen Hao, and that the "-maxxing" suffix, derived from internet slang originating in mid-2010s online communities, came to her while writing. [3]
The essay drew on earlier critiques of convenience culture. Legal scholar Tim Wu argued in a 2018 New York Times essay that society should resist the "tyranny of convenience," characterizing difficulty as a basic feature of human experience. [1] [4] German sociologist Hartmut Rosa's work on "uncontrollability," the idea that meaningful connection with life requires environments partially beyond one's control, has also been cited as an influence. [3]
The concept was picked up across a range of publications within weeks of Jezer-Morton's essay. The Financial Times reported on workers reintroducing friction into professional settings: favoring in-person meetings, reading full documents instead of AI summaries, and writing notes by hand. [1] Gianpiero Petriglieri, a professor of organisational behaviour at INSEAD, told the paper that his students worry convenience will stop them developing judgment: "A little bit like a controlling parent, it makes life easier for you, then you don't know how to manage life on your own." [1] Kester Brewin of the Institute for the Future of Work noted that frictionless job applications had created "a frenetic situation that doesn't serve firms or applicants well." [1]
Raconteur applied the concept to corporate leadership, citing research by the Institute of Labor Economics on automation reducing worker autonomy, and a Microsoft/Carnegie Mellon University study that found workers who trusted generative AI tools exercised less independent critical thinking. [5] The publication also invoked the "IKEA effect," a psychological phenomenon in which people value products more when they have helped create them, as evidence that effort increases engagement. [5]
Harper's Bazaar fashion director Chloe King connected the concept to fashion, arguing that algorithmic recommendations and one-tap purchasing had produced "expansive and numbing sameness" in personal style. She cited Rei Kawakubo and Miuccia Prada as designers whose deliberately challenging work resists easy consumption. [6] Architectural Digest similarly drew parallels with the "slow decorating" movement in interior design. [7]
In Forbes , Kevin Kruse framed friction-maxxing as a form of emotional intelligence training, arguing that the discomfort involved requires the same skills of self-awareness and self-management central to EQ frameworks. [8]
The Guardian characterised friction-maxxing as a rebranding of "character-building" and questioned the arbitrariness of drawing a line at current technologies, noting that society has continuously adopted convenience-enhancing inventions for centuries. [9]
André Spicer, executive dean of Bayes Business School, raised equity concerns, telling the Financial Times that friction-maxxing may be available mainly to high-status workers: "We often find people use friction as a way of increasing the difficulty and inconvenience of a task, to create status around it." [1] The paper also noted that a return to in-person, people-powered recruitment could favor privileged applicants and reinforce "who you know" hiring. [1]